[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1432225809.2450.11.camel@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 21 May 2015 12:30:09 -0400
From: Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To: David Howells <dhowells@...hat.com>
Cc: "Luis R. Rodriguez" <mcgrof@...e.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
linux-security-module@...r.kernel.org, james.l.morris@...cle.com,
serge@...lyn.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
linux-wireless@...r.kernel.org, Kyle McMartin <kyle@...nel.org>,
David Woodhouse <david.woodhouse@...el.com>,
Seth Forshee <seth.forshee@...onical.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
Joey Lee <jlee@...e.de>, Rusty Russell <rusty@...tcorp.com.au>,
mricon@...nel.org, Michal Marek <mmarek@...e.cz>,
Abelardo Ricart III <aricart@...nix.com>,
Sedat Dilek <sedat.dilek@...il.com>, keyrings@...ux-nfs.org,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>, Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: Re: [RFD] linux-firmware key arrangement for firmware signing
On Thu, 2015-05-21 at 16:51 +0100, David Howells wrote:
> Luis R. Rodriguez <mcgrof@...e.com> wrote:
>
> > I had this planned out because regulatory.bin used its own simple RSA key
> > with no x509 juju magic. I also envisioned it being easier for Kyle for
> > instance to use his own PGP key to sign linux-firmware files to start off
> > with than some complex x509 thing. Based on discussions with David, Seth,
> > and Kyle though it seems we were going to be happy with trusting Kyle's key
> > for regulatory.bin, since that will be done Kyle might as well sign all
> > linux-firmware files and folks who trust that can use it.
>
> To go down the signature root, what the kernel needs is:
>
> (1) A way to get a key into the kernel. We're currently using X.509 for this
> for module signing and kexec.
>
> (2) A way to get a signature into the kernel with sufficient metadata to
> select the key to use. Currently, kexec uses PKCS#7 for this and module
> signing uses a private format which I'm intending to change to PKCS#7.
>
> For firmware, I think Andy is right and we also need to include in the
> metadata something that says under what circumstances the firmware can be
> used - likely the name that is passed to request_firmware() - which must
> also be included in the digested data.
>
> I don't believe that module signing actually requires a hint of this type
> since we have to permit insmod to work and there won't be a hint we can
> trust. Besides, once verified, modules have to be loadable by the module
> loader which is probably a sufficient restriction in itself.
>
> I don't believe that kexec signing requires a name hint either since I
> think the only restriction on what we're allowed to kexec is that it must
> be bootable from the beginning - and must be a PE binary on x86 type
> platforms.
>
> I do have patches to parse PGP key data and add the public keys found therein
> onto the kernel keyring, but that would mean adding an extra key data parser.
>
> You could probably do this with the integrity functions - but turning them on
> has a performance cost and you have to load things in the right order as I
> understand it.
The only ordering is loading the keys before verifying the signatures.
Have you recently done any performance testing?
Mimi
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists